RankingEffort benchmarks

Grok 4.6 · Medium

Compare models

107 measured results · 5 effort settings · 48 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Model

Current configurationSources

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare withModel and configuration

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AGrok 4.6 · Medium3 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A66.1Supported
Hard reasoning
A48.0Supported
Coding
A70.3Supported
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A32.3Preliminary
Multimodal
Unknown
Long context
A59.6Preliminary

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Grok 4.6 · Medium: 62.5 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

5 areas measured. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Shared-result disagreement. This aggregate order conflicts with matched benchmark results against 2 other configurations. Different test coverage and opponents affect the fit. Inspect published results before treating the rank as conclusive.

Which sources carry the weight?

ARC Prize · 29.7% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Cognition · 26.7% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Artificial Analysis · 25.9% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Datacurve · 17.6% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider

Which benchmark families carry the weight?

ARC-AGI · 29.7% direct comparison weight
FrontierCode · 26.7% direct comparison weight
DeepSWE · 17.6% direct comparison weight
Humanity’s Last Exam · 2.8% direct comparison weight
GPQA · 2.8% direct comparison weight
Other families (9) · 20.4% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

DeepSWE v1.1 review: Epoch AI reported grading errors in at least 23 of 113 tasks. These published results remain included. Review their limitations in Epoch's review when interpreting this evidence.

How sensitive is this score?

The audit removes one source at a time and refits against the same overall reference panel. These published results use the matching dataset audited 2026-10-23.

Both ranks use the same surviving configurations for each removal. The cohort starts with 444 configurations supported in the original audit, including separate effort settings. These are diagnostic positions, not the default leaderboard ranks. Eligibility is not rechecked after removal.

What changes when a source is removed?
Removed source	Rank before → after	Rank movement	Cohort remaining / lost support	Score after (change)
Artificial Analysis	48 → 50	Down 2	203 remaining / 241 lost	62.6 (+0.0 points)
ARC Prize	48 → 42	Up 6	444 remaining / 0 lost	73.7 (+11.2 points)
Datacurve	48 → 56	Down 8	444 remaining / 0 lost	54.3 (-8.3 points)
LiveCodeBench	48 → 48	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.5 (+0.0 points)
Scale	48 → 48	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	63.9 (+1.3 points)
Terminal-Bench	48 → 49	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.6 (+0.0 points)
Cognition	48 → 56	Down 8	444 remaining / 0 lost	55.0 (-7.5 points)
LiveBench	48 → 48	No movement	443 remaining / 1 lost	64.0 (+1.5 points)
SWE-rebench	48 → 48	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.0 (-0.5 points)
Epoch AI	48 → 49	Down 1	431 remaining / 13 lost	63.3 (+0.8 points)
Vals AI	48 → 47	Up 1	443 remaining / 1 lost	62.0 (-0.6 points)
Provider reports · Anthropic	48 → 48	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.5 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	48 → 48	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.1 (-0.4 points)
Provider reports · Meta	48 → 48	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.5 (-0.0 points)
Provider reports · Mistral	48 → 48	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.5 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · OpenAI	48 → 49	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.5 (+0.0 points)
All provider reports	48 → 49	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	62.1 (-0.4 points)

Lost support means a configuration no longer has a comparison path to the complete reference panel. Its rank is unavailable. A surviving path alone does not establish leaderboard eligibility.

Overlapping sources may remain correlated even with source balancing. Leave-one-source-out movement is a sensitivity diagnostic, not a spread of source-specific ranks or a confidence measure. Scoring methodology · Dated configuration audit

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
arc-agi	73.8	+11.2
deepswe	54.3	-8.3
frontiercode	55.0	-7.5
arc-agi-3	61.3	-1.2
hle	63.4	+0.9
mmmu-pro	63.4	+0.9
simpleqa	63.2	+0.7
automationbench	61.9	-0.6
omniscience	63.0	+0.5
epoch-game-puzzles	62.0	-0.5
swe-rebench	62.0	-0.5
gdp-pdf	63.0	+0.4
terminal-bench	62.9	+0.4
briefcase	62.2	-0.3
harvey	62.2	-0.3
ifbench	62.2	-0.3
mmlu-pro	62.9	+0.3
gdpval	62.2	-0.3
multi-swe-bench	62.2	-0.3
gpqa	62.2	-0.3
swe-atlas-qna	62.2	-0.3
aime	62.3	-0.2
livebench-language	62.7	+0.2
tau-bench	62.3	-0.2
livebench-instructions	62.7	+0.2
aa-lcr	62.7	+0.2
swe-atlas-test-writing	62.3	-0.2
terminal-bench-science	62.6	+0.1
vibe-code	62.4	-0.1
vals-legal-research	62.4	-0.1
apex-agents	62.6	+0.1
livebench-coding	62.4	-0.1
vals-tax-agent	62.4	-0.1
enigma-eval	62.4	-0.1
analyst-agent	62.5	-0.1
livebench-data	62.6	+0.1
critpt	62.6	+0.1
vals-finance-agent	62.6	+0.0
livebench-math	62.5	-0.0
livebench-reasoning	62.5	-0.0
vals-excel-modeling	62.6	+0.0
livecodebench	62.5	-0.0
vals-code-migration	62.5	-0.0
math500	62.5	-0.0
gmmlu	62.5	-0.0
swe-atlas-refactoring	62.5	-0.0
frontiermath	62.5	+0.0
swe-bench-pro	62.5	+0.0
enterprise-ops	62.5	+0.0
itbench	62.5	-0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 145 observations, 86 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 59 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

6 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
4 · Original SciCode grading defects are under review; retained as supporting evidence, excluded from aggregate and capability scores. Corrected SciCode-Verified requires a separate protocol review. Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04975 and https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode
9 · Evaluator has not been reviewed for independent admission
2 · Effort is not identified
2 · Composite index or publisher-specific internal evaluation lacks a stable general-capability comparison unit. Composite index excluded to avoid double counting its ingredients.
10 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
17 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
5 · The launch table does not establish matching agent harnesses and evaluation settings. Retained as a provider claim; not a new comparable evaluation.
1 · Secondary Artificial Analysis leaderboard report; not an additional independent evaluation. Use the original evaluator for reviewed exact-configuration comparisons.
1 · Secondary Harvey leaderboard report; not an additional independent evaluation. Use the original Vals AI evaluation with its reviewed effort settings.
1 · Secondary Artificial Analysis leaderboard report; retain the original evaluator once, without treating the launch reprint as additional evidence.
1 · No matched opponent in this evaluation unit

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Low	Medium	High	XHigh	Unspecified
AA-AnalystAgentArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks solved on all 5 of 5 attempts · 80 tasks, 5 attempts per task · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	41.25% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	Not reported	Not reported
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase v1.1 is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,287.61 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	1,483.19 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	1,534.25 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	1,544.92 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	80.67% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	81% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	80.33% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	81% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	53.45% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	63.15% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	66.68% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	67% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally. CritPt is under review by its authors following external feedback · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	5.71% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	17.71% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	17.14% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	19.71% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
EnterpriseOps-Gym-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Overall task success rate across all eight enterprise domains (oracle tool mode) · Benchmark developed by ServiceNow Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	48.34% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	Not reported	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	15.8% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	17.8% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	17% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	17.2% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,410.2 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	1,612.18 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	1,618.11 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	1,645.38 Elo Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	87.88% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	93.54% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	94.95% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	93.54% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	27.62% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	42.12% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	42.91% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	44.07% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
MLCR-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks judged accurate, complete, and concise · Expert + compound (hard) sets · Benchmark developed by Wisedocs · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	12.22% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	Not reported	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-10-18.	25.9 Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	28 Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	30.48 Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	29.32 Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	43.28% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	41.93% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	48.23% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	43% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark curated by scientists across 16 disciplines. SciCode is under review following an independent audit of the dataset · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	49.42% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	55.9% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	56.48% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	53.01% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	38.14% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	44.33% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	50.72% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	43.3% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Artificial Analysis · mini-swe-agent; Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1.0; 70 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats Benchmark details Share of tasks passed (pass@1), averaged over three repeats · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	6.19% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	Not reported	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	75.28% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	84.27% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	88.39% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	88.01% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v4.0Artificial Analysis · mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6; 66 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats; 500 steps; task timeout up to 8 hours Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute, Stanford, and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	3.03% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-low	13.13% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-medium	21.21% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6	17.17% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-6-xhigh	Not reported
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize · v2 Semi-Private Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	27.64% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Low); Source model ID: xai-grok-4-6-low; 120 tasks	61.25% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (Medium); Source model ID: xai-grok-4-6-medium; 120 tasks	65.14% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (High); Source model ID: xai-grok-4-6-high; 120 tasks	67.08% Reported settings Grok 4.6 (XHigh); Source model ID: xai-grok-4-6-xhigh; 120 tasks	Not reported
DeepSWE v1.1Datacurve · mini-swe-agent Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	41.6% Reported settings grok-4-6; Reported effort: low; 113 unique tasks; 449 attempts; 4 runs	67.5% Reported settings grok-4-6; Reported effort: medium; 113 unique tasks; 452 attempts; 4 runs	65.2% Reported settings grok-4-6; Reported effort: high; 113 unique tasks; 451 attempts; 4 runs	66.7% Reported settings grok-4-6; Reported effort: xhigh; 113 unique tasks; 451 attempts; 4 runs	Not reported
VulcanBench v3 · Report 14VulcanBench · VulcanBench bare-bones API loop, deterministic hidden tests in Docker Benchmark details Frozen v3, 23 post-cutoff repository tasks. Published pass@1; repeat counts and time budgets vary by report. Display only pending comparability review. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	82.6% Reported settings Grok 4.6; source label: low; low effort; 23 tasks; evaluation 2026-08-12. See source for repeat counts and wall-clock budget.	87% Reported settings Grok 4.6; source label: medium; medium effort; 23 tasks; evaluation 2026-08-12. See source for repeat counts and wall-clock budget.	73.9% Reported settings Grok 4.6; source label: high (default); high effort; 23 tasks; evaluation 2026-08-12. See source for repeat counts and wall-clock budget.	78.3% Reported settings Grok 4.6; source label: xhigh; xhigh effort; 23 tasks; evaluation 2026-08-12. See source for repeat counts and wall-clock budget.	Not reported
ARC-AGI-3 · standardARC Prize · Standard Benchmark details ARC-AGI-3; Standard. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	2.11% Reported settings ARC-AGI-3 Semi-Private verified summary; Standard harness; source group xai-grok-4-6; variant xhigh; public-demo task scores are excluded	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · extended-grok-buildCognition · grok-build Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; grok-build. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	55.02% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; grok-build; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	59.62% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; grok-build; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.004	61.31% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; grok-build; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0047	Not reported	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · main-grok-buildCognition · grok-build Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; grok-build. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	40.11% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; grok-build; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	46.06% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; grok-build; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.006	48.01% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; grok-build; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.007	Not reported	Not reported
Terminal-Bench 4.0 · grokbuildTerminal-Bench · Grok Build Benchmark details Terminal-Bench 4.0; Grok Build. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	20.3% Reported settings Terminal-Bench 4.0.0; 66 tasks; Grok Build; effort high; reported margin ±3.1 percentage points, confidence level unspecified; release date 2026-08-12; board checked 2026-10-07	Not reported	Not reported

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 8,916 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18

Grok 4.6 · Medium

Compare with

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context

Capability score evidence

Benchmark results